Messages - fallot

I think you're more likely to get widespread railgun use first rather than directed energy weapons, considering there are working, saleable prototypes right now: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uV1SbEuzFU

Not very concerned about North Korea, their current behaviour is consistent with past practices. Sure, the reason it works is because of their unpredictability and the potential stakes, but I think that's more an appearance than reality. Nothing that changes the current balance could possibly be beneficial for the NK elite, but grandstanding and then backing off when attempts at placation are made will result in reward. Also, I'm so happy I have a contemporaneous evil dictator to grow old with ("Come around kids, and I'll tell you about when Kim Jong-un used to be young and.... anyway he was pretty young").

So which one of the innumerable forums that have chucked you out for being a loon did you steal this stupid fucking idea from? Also Umbrage has better taste in music than you and makes more interesting posts, how about you take a long break instead? Don't you have some nature to appreciate or something? You don't even like metal!

If there was some dignity to your mien perhaps you wouldn't smarmily degrade a reasonable poster, but there isn't, and there's none in me either, so its open house: Lets see, you wasted your whole fucking life chasing some kind of dragon. On the way you paid fat ugly women for the pleasure of being dominated, or perhaps just talking to them. Near the end of your life you realized you were an idiot and had some epiphany. All the while your genes cried out at their certain demise. Unfortunately, this experience seems to have unhinged you in a subtle way, where you pretend to be a crazy normal person, but are actually a crazy novelty seeking retiree (or a liar, or both).

Sari-e Saqati was the first man to preach in Baghdad on the mystic truths and the Suh “unity”. Most of the Sufi shaikhs of Iraq were his disciples. He was the uncle of Jonaid and the pupil of Ma’ruf-e Karkhi; he had also seen Habib-e Ra’i. To begin with he lived in Baghdad, where he had a shop. Hanging a curtain over the door of his shop, he would go in and pray, performing several rak’as daily in this fashion.

One day a man came from Mount Lokam to visit him. Lifting aside the curtain, he greeted him. “Shaikh So-and-so from Mount Lokam greets you,” he said. “He dwells in the mountains,” commented Sari. “So his efforts amount to nothing. A man ought to be able to live in the midst of the market and be so preoccupied with God, that not for a single instant is he absent from God.”

I must be an exception to your rule. There's nobody more (laterally) intelligent, nor anyone more sensible. And nobody more conservative, in its purest sense. But, as I am so fond of pointing out: I don't think. Intelligence, alone, is reliably counterproductive. It must be subordinate to common-sense. Anybody can be intelligent, through accident of birth. Not everyone, however, can be sensible.

Bear in mind I am not talking about a dichotomy where more intelligence = less common sense, it's just more likely that intelligent people would tend to ignore their common sense (which can be non-rational, but arrives at correct conclusions more often than not) and hence leave it underdeveloped. You can of course, still realize this, whether independently or because of a society that instills a certain point of view in you that is conducive towards this realization. Conservatism isn't just in your head, it's also in your heart. You don't just realize the value of conservation but feel it to be a beautiful thing.

I don't follow the (retarded) idea that people in older times were dumber than ourselves

Perhaps this should be reconsidered. People in past times almost certainly did have a lower IQ than is prevalent in the world today, but maybe that's the key to it. With a lower IQ, they might be more likely to use "built in" or "common sense" (gene-derived, universe derived, tradition derived, however you want to call it) approaches to problems rather than pure rationality. The struggle against death leads to greater and greater complexity, to the point where the faculty which leads to this complexity overwhelms common sense; intelligence. You can even see this trend right now, conservatives have a lower average IQ than liberals, the higher up you go on the IQ scale the more dysfunction appears. It seems to come with a certain openness, whether internal or external (and imo, pathological, see Haidt). That would make us both smarter and much dumber than past people, in a manner of speaking.

The notion of this "Dark Enlightenment" (name pinched from Roissy) requires some feeling to it, it is rational in acceptance of the irrational aspects of human nature, not pretending it should be otherwise like liberals like to (pretending rationality or a blank slate nature).

That suggests rights do not exist beyond the societal level, which was what was stated. Umbrage, is this certain sense of fairness then the same or similar across the spectrum of humanity? Does it average out into a plurality of standards (which may still be somewhat similar) or just one, or none? Something being a right implies that it is owed, and by nothing less than society (which for most people means literal reality) itself. This isn't what we get out of your breakdown, so I think its reasonable to say rights don't exist.

What the hell does Ada Lovelace have to do with feminism? You know what this sounds like? It's like when liberals say just because Dr. Blackperson got a PhD in physics, so can Da'Shwawn from the hood. A capable woman is not an argument for feminism, but an argument against.

The music has to come through too, otherwise its just some irrelevant nostalgia to most people. Can't really expect much success if there isn't anything much to talk about or report that's interesting, unless you totally sell out or something. It's a great site.

Overall, this forum, while it's tastes are more extreme, are more like the nerd types, though there is a considerable blending of the two styles.

Sure, I'll put money on most of the people here being your "nerd types" at a basic level but you're missing the element of the dark side. A third type, a nerd inverse. Like you who probably drifted between both and are likely a brainy, generally nice person with a taste for... other things.

You know I see this sort of thing raised more by autistic high intelligence social justice forum user white male nerd types than actual black people. It's that sort that likes to pretend to carry the burden of the world on their shoulders. Doesn't mean it's not still done by the genuine "activists" and group members, but increasingly I'm of the opinion that high intelligence types become detrimental to the health of societies. They are developed as a response to adversity and answer with complexity, but this complexity is an artifice and eventually exceeds by far the bounds of reality. Lies become truth to an overwhelming extent. A <120 "cull", even as a thought experiment, doesn't work if that's the case.

Didn't one of this website's iterations review Winter's Into Darkness? Am I just imagining stuff? If I'm not, do they remain excluded because of reasons that involve the band/beliefs, reasons that involve their music, or reasons that involve the review? The first is no reason, the second is unconvincing, the third may be true because I just don't remember.

Most metal is obviously populist, emerging as it did from the skeleton of rock music. Not even mentioning hair metal, nu-metal, -core stuff etc. But at the rarefied end of the spectrum are true greats which aren't populist and are often enough anti-populist. In every iteration of extreme metal and even its ancestors, there are some elements that exclude the broad sweep of society, whether deliberate or just a necessary aspect of the music and what it means to convey.

Art isn't "for" the masses or elites, and when it is it is generally crap. A failing of humanity doesn't make metal essentially populist, but still yeah... a lot of it is.